Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 069 für die Entscheidung T1628/21 vom 06.02.2024

In T 1628/21 claim 1 was directed to an article of apparel comprising among other things "a lower back position feedback system (202) engaged with the garment structure at the lower back portion". The interpretation of the expression "engaged with" was relevant in the context of assessing novelty and inventive step of the opposed patent. The respondent (patent proprietor) submitted that the meaning of "engage" was for one distinct part to interact with another part, rather than for one part to be inherently and inseparably comprised within the other. The respondent also argued that Art. 69 EPC should be used to interpret the claim and referred to several paragraphs of the description where "engaged with" was used only in relation to separate material pieces being attached to one another rather than being otherwise incorporated. The board disagreed with the respondent's interpretation of the term "engaged with" and held that its meaning was broader (i.e. also encompassed arrangements in which the lower back position feedback system was integrally incorporated into the garment structure). In the board's view the expression was not unclear in its context and consequently there was no need to refer to the description in order to interpret the scope of the claim (see T 881/01, T 58/13 and T 299/09 in which limitations to a claim's interpretation could not be derived from the description). The board referred to T 223/05, T 1404/05 and T 1127/16 in which it was held that a technically skilled reader does not normally need any further description-based guidance on claim interpretation, the claims essentially being read and interpreted on their own merits. The board also stated that consideration of the description would not lead to the respondent's restrictive interpretation. It emphasised that in the context of Art. 69 EPC the claims and the description, including the drawings, did not have the same status. As mentioned in Art. 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC (the Protocol), under the principle of primacy of the patent claims, two "polar" models of interpretation are in principle possible, i.e. an isolated interpretation of the wording of the claims alone on the one hand and an interpretation which understands the wording of the claims merely as a starting point in the context of the overall disclosure on the other. The established case law of the boards of appeal did not favour either of these "polar" models of interpretation, but something lying in- between. In G 2/88, point 4 of the Reasons, the Enlarged Board of Appeal had already stated that the "object of the Protocol is clearly to avoid too much emphasis on the literal wording of the claims when considered in isolation from the remainder of the text of the patent in which they appear; and also to avoid too much emphasis upon the general inventive concept disclosed in the text of the patent as compared to the relevant prior art, without sufficient regard also to the wording of the claims as a means of definition." In line with this case law, the board established that the interpretation of "engaged with" was not a matter of an isolated interpretation of only the wording of the claim in the sense of a purely linguistic consideration of the same. Rather, the feature must be interpreted in the light of general knowledge of the person skilled in the technical field concerned. This first required an identification of the technical field resulting from the overall disclosure of the patent in order to determine the person skilled in that specific field. Furthermore, the general knowledge of the skilled person ensured that the technical context in which the claims were situated was taken into account when interpreting the claims (see also T 1646/12). The board noted that neither Art. 69 nor its Protocol explicitly addressed the extent to which the description and drawings can be used to interpret the claims. Nevertheless, according to the board, the principle of primacy of the claims seemed to exclude the use of the description and drawings for limiting the claims if an interpretation of the claim in the light of common general knowledge already leads to a technically meaningful result. Similarly, the principle, established by case law, according to which "limiting features which are only present in the description and not in the claim cannot be read into a patent claim" was also fully compatible with Art. 69 EPC and Art. 1 of the Protocol (cf. T 1473/19). The board also stated that it may be that the reader is presented with specific definitions in the description in cases where terminology in the claims is e.g. unusual or where special meanings are attributed. Such definitions, if relevant for validity, should normally be included in the claims. In the case at hand, however, there was no such definition of "engaged with" in the description.